Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable operational context: IDs must be exact, resolved values, and name/URL inputs are invalid for applicant_id. This goes beyond the annotations and helps prevent retrieving the wrong resume.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences: the first states the action, the second gives the essential safety constraint. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with only three parameters and a fully described schema, the definition is functionally complete. It covers prerequisites, ID pairing, invalid inputs, and the core action. No output schema exists, but the tool name and description make the returned resource sufficiently clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds a meaningful extra constraint—never use candidate name or LinkedIn URL as applicant_id—and emphasizes resolving IDs first. This adds value beyond the schema, though it is partially redundant.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a Recruiter applicant resume.' The 'Recruiter' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling linkedin_classic_get_applicant_resume, and the added constraint about not using candidate name or LinkedIn URL gives precise scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly instructs the agent to resolve exact project_id and applicant_id before calling, and explicitly forbids using candidate name or LinkedIn URL as applicant_id. It does not explicitly compare alternatives like linkedin_classic_get_applicant_resume or linkedin_recruiter_get_applicant, but the provided preconditions are clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.